Chicago to open city's first high school for gay, lesbian, and transgender students

**Terminator** · 10-10-08, 02:39 AM

Pointing to studies showing that gay high school students are at greater risk of dropping out because of stigma and fear of violence, Chicago Public Schools leaders said Wednesday that they will recommend opening a campus aimed at these students.

Final approval of the School for Social Justice Pride Campus, designed as the city's first school for gay, lesbian and transgender teenagers, along with 17 other schools, is expected to come Oct. 22 when the Board of Education votes.

Schools chief Arne Duncan said he will ask the board to approve the schools, which are expected to open in the fall of 2009 and 2010, to give greater choice to parents and students. "We want to create great new options for communities that have been traditionally underserved," he said. "If you look at national studies, you see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates. . . . I think there is a niche there we need to fill."

About 50 people attended a public hearing Wednesday night, with most supporting the school.Supporters said they envision a high school with a maximum of 600 students. It would have the same staffing and oversight requirements as other district schools. Students would be admitted from throughout the city on a lottery basis, officials said. A site has not been chosen.

Chad Weiden, an assistant principal at the Social Justice High School who would be principal at Pride Campus, said the school would incorporate lessons about sexual identity in literature and history classes and offer counseling. The school would be prohibited under state and federal laws from asking about a student's sexual identity, officials said.

A 2003 district survey shows that gay and lesbian youths are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe. On Wednesday, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network released a national survey of more than 6,000 middle and high school students that found that nearly 90 percent were harassed at school and about 61 percent felt unsafe.

At an earlier public hearing, some gay rights advocates said the school would segregate these students and that the district should work to foster acceptance.

**Odd** · 10-10-08, 03:53 AM

Pointing to studies showing that gay high school students are at greater risk of dropping out because of stigma and fear of violence

Do short kids get their own school? Where's Four-Eye-High? I'd ask where the Nerd School of D&D is, but it wouldn't matter: it's hidden by a protective spell.

A 2003 district survey shows that gay and lesbian youths are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe.

One picked on group leaves, the other picked on groups take up the slack. Where does this lead?

**Ducky** · 10-10-08, 10:16 AM

I may be in the minority here, but I don't have a problem with this at all. Public schools aren't much better than prisons for the most part, the thugs co-mingle with the students who really are there to learn, and those who are different can't go anywhere alone for fear of a gang beating. And speaking as someone who was on the receiving end of a gang beating more than once, they're really not all that fun.

**Five-0** · 10-10-08, 02:29 PM

Leave it to liberals to bring back segregation and sale it under the guise of political correctness.

**armsmaster270** · 10-10-08, 11:38 PM

If I can't go to it as a straight it's unconstitutional and I'm gonna sue. I really need the money.

**Terminator** · 10-11-08, 12:13 AM

I can understand the idea behind it, and I think the minds behind this concept have good intentions, but it's a bad idea. It's segregation. It's not fair to tax payers...not when there are public schools. We don't need a public school for every type of different race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference.

**Rhino** · 10-11-08, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Terminator

It's segregation.

Bam. From the most racist political part of all time: Democrats.

**Jenna** · 10-11-08, 10:14 PM

Taxpayers' money has to be spent on educating these kids no matter where they go to school. If there are enough of them to sustain a school of their own, why not? It's no different than having all-girls' schools so that girls who might otherwise be intimidated and/or distracted by boys will have a better chance at succeeding academically.

**Terminator** · 10-11-08, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by Jenna

Taxpayers' money has to be spent on educating these kids no matter where they go to school. If there are enough of them to sustain a school of their own, why not? It's no different than having all-girls' schools so that girls who might otherwise be intimidated and/or distracted by boys will have a better chance at succeeding academically.

The difference is as a rule all girls schools are private schools, and are not necessarily funded by taxpayers. I have a problem with creating separate public schools (funded by taxpayers) for a specific race, gender, or sexual preference. It's segregation. Such a simple concept.

**adroitcuffs** · 10-11-08, 11:33 PM

I think all of the students (regardless of categorical labels) would benefit more if the money was spent building schools that would allow for smaller class size and smaller overall population. Cramming 5K high school kids into a logistically smaller school, with 40 kids in a 1-teacher classroom, is a recipe for problems.

**Five-0** · 10-12-08, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Jenna

Taxpayers' money has to be spent on educating these kids no matter where they go to school. If there are enough of them to sustain a school of their own, why not? It's no different than having all-girls' schools so that girls who might otherwise be intimidated and/or distracted by boys will have a better chance at succeeding academically.

I suppose it would be OK if the schools were separate but equal.....what a minute haven't we been there before? Talk about Deja vu

**121Traffic** · 10-12-08, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Terminator

The difference is as a rule all girls schools are private schools, and are not necessarily funded by taxpayers. I have a problem with creating separate public schools (funded by taxpayers) for a specific race, gender, or sexual preference. It's segregation. Such a simple concept.

Originally Posted by Five-0

I suppose it would be OK if the schools were separate but equal.....what a minute haven't we been there before? Talk about Deja vu

DING DING DING!

**Buttercup** · 10-12-08, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Terminator

I can understand the idea behind it, and I think the minds behind this concept have good intentions, but it's a bad idea. It's segregation. It's not fair to tax payers...not when there are public schools. We don't need a public school for every type of different race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference.

I agree.

**Jenna** · 10-12-08, 08:53 AM

The main problem with racial segregation was/is that some racial groups have less money, property, and property tax bases than others, so if they were segregated the lower-income groups' schools would be underfunded compared to the higher-income groups' schools, and thus unequal. But there's no income gap between the families of gay kids and the families of straight kids, or between the families of girls and the families' of boys, so separate is unlikely to result in unequal for them. Granted, I see some problems with single-sex or single-sexual-orientation education as well (e.g. kids don't get as much of a chance to learn how to deal with and tolerate those of the group not in their school), but there are advantages too, and I don't think the option should be ruled out entirely even for public schools (I also think taxpayer-funded vouchers for students to attend religious and private schools would be fine as long as those schools accept all interested students by lottery regardless of their religion or academic achievements).

**lewisipso** · 10-12-08, 08:54 AM

So the taxpayer is fronting money for a school sponsored by discrimination? I thought that was illegal.

segregation (sĕg'rĭ-gā'shən)

The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
Genetics. The separation of paired alleles or homologous chromosomes, especially during meiosis, so that the members of each pair appear in different gametes

For the sake of not quoting the whole thing....

the Supreme Court... ruling that segregation was "inherently unequal."

Sorry can't have it both ways. Extremely bad idea.

**MacLean** · 10-12-08, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jenna

The main problem with racial segregation was/is that some racial groups have less money, property, and property tax bases than others, so if they were segregated the lower-income groups' schools would be underfunded compared to the higher-income groups' schools, and thus unequal.

The main problem with segregation is that it isn't legal.

You do actually read about supreme court cases in school, right?

Separation with equality is a hate crime.

**Jenna** · 10-12-08, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by maclean

The main problem with segregation is that it isn't legal.

You do actually read about supreme court cases in school, right?

Separation with equality is a hate crime.

The reason racial segregation was made illegal was because separate was considered inherently unequal, due largely to the economic disparities between racial groups. Sexual orientation is a different issue because it doesn't involve economic disparities. Also Brown v. Board of Education only addressed segregation that was mandatory, which doesn't appear to be the case here (the article says that no one is allowed to ask about students' sexual orientations, so presumably gay students can choose not to attend this school, and straight students can choose to attend it--it is not mandatory).

**Car 4** · 10-13-08, 12:57 AM

You guys have totally missed the point.....ITS IN CHICAGO! It is therefore automatically a SCAM designed by some asswipe in the school district to SCAM some money somehow. That is the only reason they do ANYTHING like this is Chicago. The most POLITICALLY CORRUPT city in this country.

If anyone cared about these kids, it would be done somewhere else and by people with no axe to grind or angle to be played.

Love ya, kids but this is just another bullshit example of how to screw the taxpayer......and guess what? This is the system that Obama grew up in.

Car 4

**MacLean** · 10-13-08, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Jenna

The reason racial segregation was made illegal was because separate was considered inherently unequal, due largely to the economic disparities between racial groups. Sexual orientation is a different issue because it doesn't involve economic disparities. Also Brown v. Board of Education only addressed segregation that was mandatory, which doesn't appear to be the case here (the article says that no one is allowed to ask about students' sexual orientations, so presumably gay students can choose not to attend this school, and straight students can choose to attend it--it is not mandatory).

You lost your case right after the word due.

Go read Plessy and then Brown, and come back.

The key word you are looking for is "inherently" and not "economic."

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. - Chief Justice Warren

**Rhino** · 10-13-08, 04:15 AM

Jenna, go back and read your posts. You are defending discrimination- no matter which way you slice that pie.

What if this was the idea of Bush or McCain? I promise you every person that defends this idea would be screaming it's discrimination.

It's not about party or political lines. It's seperating one group of people from another because they are different. Yes, that means I think an all-boys or all-girls schools is equally wrong. However, there is one inherent difference: those are private schools. Taxpayer money isn't paying for that discrimination.

If you want to set up a private school that teaches intolerence, that's fine by me- my kids won't be going to it. But don't pay for your biggoted ideals with my money.